Author
Topic: Canon Mirrorless on the Horizon? (Read 14623 times)

J-Man

I can see Canon charging $100+ for an adapter, just look what Olympus is charging for theirs, just remember this won't be a cheap POS.

There is 0% chance Canon will join the 4/3, m4/3 camp, they could design their own mount super easy, all they have to do is alter the EF design enough to prevent the direct mounting of EF lenses, that would give them freedom to release an APS-C sensor camera with an instant up grade path to FF.

My biggest fear is that they will use a smaller than APS-C sensor, I'm sure they will be looking closely at Pantax's Q sales numbers.

"I'm a little lost on why mirror-less is excting, besides just having another gadget."

The ability to mount legacy glass is one reason, a more compact system is another, there are many times I've left my 1DIII & 40D at home because I didn't want to be burdened with an anchor all day/night and no a P&S is not an option, the IQ sucks, and DOF control is pathetic.

There is a possibility that Canon could release a G13/Cononet with an APS-C sensor to take on Fuji's X100, and add a 28-85(35mm) f2 zoom.

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

I recall a Canon official once mentioned during an interview that the company would not consider the mirrorless market unless there's a way to come up with an AF system quick enough (comparable to the entry DSLR models).

my 5-cents here:- Digital full-frame version of Canon 7 w/ 50mm f/0.95 to directly compete with M9- don't really care about lenses mount as long as it can mount some M lenses (via adaptor or not)- Couple of extra lenses 28/35/50/90mm would be nice

Are there other canon fans that would vote for this?

That will be a fun camera to have. The only question is How many Canon fans will give up the auto focus? I am for it as long as Canon brings back the rangefinder lens with fine focus adjustment With a fine range finder built into the camera.

my 5-cents here:- Digital full-frame version of Canon 7 w/ 50mm f/0.95 to directly compete with M9- don't really care about lenses mount as long as it can mount some M lenses (via adaptor or not)- Couple of extra lenses 28/35/50/90mm would be nice

Are there other canon fans that would vote for this?

That will be a fun camera to have. The only question is How many Canon fans will give up the auto focus? I am for it as long as Canon brings back the rangefinder lens with fine focus adjustment With a fine range finder built into the camera.

I think there will ultimately be some challenges that Canon (or any manufacturer needs to address):- with a fixed lens system (e.g. Fuji X100) a cheaper leaf shutter is viable. For an interchangeable lens system, the the cheapest shutter system is probably a focal plane shutter (since a leaf shutter would need to be built into the lens). A focal plane shutter adds quite a bit of complexity over the type of leaf shutter that the Powershots have.- Autofocus on mirrorless systems has not been perfected - contrast-detect autofocus does not work as well as phase-detect (which requires a reflex mirror). Leica's solution was to do without autofocus. With larger sensors, using the sensor to do contrast-detect based focusing is a drain on the battery, and creates heat.

These are probably the two biggest technical challenges I can think of. There are probably more.

I believe that the reason that Canon has not jumped headlong into the mirrorless segment yet is becausethe technical problems have, to date, led to solutions which are not appropriate to the market Canon wantsto address.

Maybe Canon are on their way to sorting out the technical issues? I don't know.

While I would welcome a range finder, I think that most users (the bulk of the market) want autofocus. Mostpeople who take snap-shots don't want to spend time on focusing. Most people under the age of 30 haveprobably also never encountered a camera that does not have autofocus! - The first camera I bought - anEOS650 - had autofocus, but I have used cameras like a Zeiss Ikon and Canon T70 to have the experience ofhaving to use manual focus. (The Zeiss will see use again once I put aside the cash to have it overhauled,as I am currently scared to use it, for fear that it will break after over 20 years in storage.)

I've been researching these for a while and waited fot the June 30 announcement. I like the look of the E-P3 a lot. But thought it might be a bit expensive for something I may not use much. A local store had an awesome deal on the E-pl1 + kit lens + EVF. The lens and EVF would be compatible if I ever want to upgrade.

UncleFester

"I'm a little lost on why mirror-less is excting, besides just having another gadget."

The ability to mount legacy glass is one reason,

And onto true rangefinder (like the M8 M9). And I don't think the X100 fits this catagorie (correct me if I'm wrong) but it's to my understanding that a rangefinders sharpness characteristic is the reduced distance of the the rear lens element to the focal plane. Which would put one up on the X100 and no need to compete.

If the X100 isn't a rangefinder, then it is more likely a point and shoot with a big sensor and compact body. Not very impressive.

So, what I'm getting at here is, it makes no sense for me to be gassing for mirrorless systems for the sake of portability or mounting a Zeiss if the end result is only competitive for almost-as-good-as dslr image quality. Where a true rangefinder would really make a difference.

Logged

Flake

Mirrorless is exciting - not because it's another gadget, but because there's no mirror! In a DSLR a mirror is a neccessary evil, but evil it is. It prevents the exit pupil being moved closer to the sensor plane (bad for wide angle especially), and then there's the mirror slap, you can move to live view to avoid it, but then you're shooting the same as the mirrorless camera, but without the benefits. The shutter assembly is large only syncs with flash at slow speeds, it's possible without a mirror to increase the flash sync.

The true rangefinder comment is a little confusing, the rangefinder is a focus system not a mount, and isn't particularly good with zoom lenses. The reason the Leica M7 M8 appears sharp is that it doesn't have an anti aliasing filter. Pros & Cons to that, but certainly sharp.

If the X100 isn't a rangefinder, then it is more likely a point and shoot with a big sensor and compact body. Not very impressive.

So, what I'm getting at here is, it makes no sense for me to be gassing for mirrorless systems for the sake of portability or mounting a Zeiss if the end result is only competitive for almost-as-good-as dslr image quality. Where a true rangefinder would really make a difference.

You are right, X100 is not a range finder. The excitement of it is the retro style and the optical view finder and electronic view finder can be switch over through the same eyepiece.None of the existing mirrorless camera excite me due to the slow shutter lag. The best one is still twice as much as a DSLR. There is only one that impresses me, the Leica M9. It is too rich for my blood. It takes careof the shutter lag by not using auto focus. Instead it uses manual focus via range finder. When it is handled properly(using zone focusing technique), it will be be faster than the auto focus of DSLR.

Mirrorless is exciting - not because it's another gadget, but because there's no mirror! In a DSLR a mirror is a neccessary evil, but evil it is. It prevents the exit pupil being moved closer to the sensor plane (bad for wide angle especially), and then there's the mirror slap, you can move to live view to avoid it, but then you're shooting the same as the mirrorless camera, but without the benefits. The shutter assembly is large only syncs with flash at slow speeds, it's possible without a mirror to increase the flash sync.

The true rangefinder comment is a little confusing, the rangefinder is a focus system not a mount, and isn't particularly good with zoom lenses. The reason the Leica M7 M8 appears sharp is that it doesn't have an anti aliasing filter. Pros & Cons to that, but certainly sharp.

The mirror give us fast auto focus and fast shutter lag. Nowadays, the mirror are so well damped that It hardly causes vibration unless you are working with microscope or copying stand for extremely critical work. There is always a mirror lock up function. At slow shutter speed, most of the shaking are from the user, not the mirror.So far the best mirrorless still have twice the shutter lag of DSLR. So would you rather have longer shutter lag or the mirror?As for M9, the picture is sharp and good look is due to the exceptional good Lieca lens plus no AA filter. Leica may have better DSP also. Leica uses range finder manual focusing. It can be faster than the DSLR if handled correctly. Unfortunately, It is too expensive for me

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

My feeling is that EF & EF-S lenses will not be a native fit and that a third range of lenses will be the order of the day. Firstly, there is more money to be made in making customers duplicate their lenses, second, although APS-C is possible, it's just as likely to share a sensor with the G series, which would have the advantage of not needing as large a lenses to feed the sensor, which makes the lenses cheaper to make thus creating a greater profit margin. I suspect also that the lens range will be large, but also EF/EF-S compatable using an expensive adaptor.

Canon are not in the game to suit what we want, but to make money and allowing native use of existing lenses would be like shooting themselves in the money making foot ! Canon might not wish to erode too deeply into their current and future DSLR market, but will wish to take sales off existing compact interchangeable cameras and twist the arms of premium compact buyers into buying something more than just a camera.

Also, I'll give it a week or so before we see photoshopped images of little cigarette box mock up designs attached to a 1200mm tele ;-)

Also, I'll give it a week or so before we see photoshopped images of little cigarette box mock up designs attached to a 1200mm tele ;-)

nothing yet, i'm too lazy to make my own, but i did find this. The camera on the back in one of the pic looks like a film camera, that looks like a matchbox already compared to the lens...

and as for the general idea of ef/s lenses on an EVIL, for anyone who doesn't know, the flange distance of an EOS camera is 44.0mm. So if you want to mount that lens on any camera, it has to be 44.0mm from the film/sensor. Any further and it won't focus to infinity. Any closer would work, but you lose macro capability, you can focus beyond infinity, and i think the lens' inbuilt distance-information would be off.So to make a compact camera which is by definition at least 44mm thick (closer to 50 at least i'd think) doesn't make sense.

So definitely they'd need a new lens mount, something closer to the ~20mm of the u4/3 and NEX would be more like it.And canon won't be stupid, they'll make an adapter so you can mount your ef/s lenses on any EVIL they make, so that you can use them with full autofocus and IS. Making a tilt/shift adapter would be nice too, but probably not possible to keep AF and IS, you'd be lucky to get diaphragm-linkage.

I doubt canon would make one for any other brand though, so no Leica M adapter. But just wait a month or two and then buy one off ebay from china...

And the upside of a shorter flange distance is that wide-angles get easier to make. Even with a Full Frame sensor, it is a lot easier to make a 15mm lens with a flange distance of 20mm than 44mm. I don't think they'll try a FF EVIL just yet, but even on APS-C we could get sweet lenses down to 5-10mm prime a lot lighter and cheaper than efs...